relationship of a lower poppy crop than a hired list of crops? we are working with the government's and ruled law challenges as well. in each of these areas, we have realistic expectations. we are trying to have good measurements, and we will be carefully following at to see what kind of progress we are making. >> i appreciate that. i think that is critically important not only to determining how we are doing, but also in keeping the support of the american people and seeing that progress is in fact being made, and where it isn't, that a plan is in place to try and change the direction. in that connection, do we have any specific ideas about how to assist president karzai in rooting out the corruption

within the government? it is one thing to tell him that that is what needs to be done. it is another thing to expected to be done, and can we be of assistance, which i think would assure us of some success. . . >> we have a lot of experienced

officials from dea, from fbi, from the department of justice, as well as places like the agricultural department, etc. and there's cooperation on major funds. we're certifying afghan ministries, and there are some that we believe are functioning well enough now that we can with confidence provide funding, holding their leadership accountable, and others we're not going to touch. until they get cleaned out, they will not get any united states civilian assistance. we are asking for additional resources on the ground with all the actors, because we want real time reports. we're supporting the major crimes task force and other afghan anti-corruption efforts. the major crime task force is a

bet it afghan units supported by u.s. and british law enforcement officials. it is focusing on corruption as part of its mandate. it has recently charged several afghan officials and others are under investigation. ultimately, it is up to the afghans to end corruption. and we have an expectation of that. but we have no illusion that this will happen easily or quickly. but we know how important it is to be working to try to root it out. >> i would add, senator, that we have to be honest with ourselves. the massive influx of money into a afghanistan that is being -- that comes from ourselves and our international partners, it is a huge factor in this or a significant factor.

and as secretary clinton has suggested, i think we need to go back and look at how we are dispersing -- dispensing money, and how we're doing contract and, and so on. i know that the subject is near and dear to senator mack pascrell's heart, but how can we leverage the areas -- senator mark haccaskill's heart. >> he raised and issue, contract and process these. -- contracting processes. everything that our troops use, are civilians depend on, it largely comes from the outside.

the goods get loaded onto a truck and then the trucks have that long trip through pakistan up into afghanistan. it is a very difficult environment to operate in. there is a lot of evidence that in addition to funding from the gulf and the illegal narcotics trade that is siphoning off contractual money from the international community, there is also intimidation and extortion, it is a major source of funding for the taliban. we have to be honest here about how complex and difficult this problem is and how frankly is not all and afghan problem. -- is not all and afghan problem. -- it is not all an afghan problem. >> did all of you realize that

this is the last best chance america has to get it right in afghanistan? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> politically and militarily and otherwise? >> and we also realize how sad it was that we were making that decision eight years later. >> it is sad. it would have been sad to have lost in iraq. >> we're talking about the future now, and winning, i hope. what the consequences of a failed state in afghanistan to our national security interests? one being inconsequential, 10 being grave, where would you put a failed state in afghanistan in terms of our national security interests. secretary clinton? >> secretary gramm, i would put it at a tan.

i think that the failed state that stolie lawless, a safe haven for terrorists, particularly the senate of terrorism headed by al qaeda, poses a direct threat to the security of united states of america. the oilers do all of you agree with that? >> do all of you agree with that? i think you're right. he did this because he realized it was a tan, too. -- it was a 10, too. >> i think that there are at least two principal audiences. one audience, and a very important one, is the afghan government. they must accept responsibility

in terms of their own governance and iran security forces, and -- and their own security forces, understanding and taking ownership of this conflict on their own soil. it is not just going to be fought by foreigners. i think the other audience is the american people, who are weary of eight years of war, and to let them know that this is not going to go on for another 10 years. >> but there are other people listening. that is my problem. i can understand the frustration of the american people. we have been here eight years and it is not working out a way that we would all hope. i can understand that, but i cannot understand letting afghanistan go back into the abyss again. that is my dilemma. on december 10, you will begin to evaluate afghanistan i knew, is that correct?

>> we will have a continuing process, but there will be a full-scale reevaluation in december, yes. >> my question is, with the about -- will the evaluation decision be how fast we will withdraw or should we withdraw? >> principally about the strategy that we put in place, is it working? >> is a possible in 2010 to reach the conclusion that it is not wise to withdraw any one in july 2011? is that possible? >> i think the president as commander in chief always has the option to adjust his decisions. >> it is not locked and that we're going to be withdrawing our droop -- locked in that we're going to be withdrawn our troops and 2010. we can make a decision then

about the pace. >> yes, if it is our plan to begin this transition process in july 2011, if circumstances dictate in december. the president always has the freedom to adjust his decision. >> and mullen, is it your understanding that it is possible -- admiral mullen, is it your understanding that it is possible not to withdraw in 2011? >> i reiterate that the president has choices as president. >> so his statement last night did not find him to start withdrawing in 2011. that is the understanding? >> i would say it was a clear and statement of his strong intent. >> i understand why he would want to let the american people know that we will not be there forever, but this is a critically important event.

i think that the success of this operation depends on will and resolve. i don't want the july 2011 statement to be seen by fire in me, not one of the audiences that you mentioned, which i think are listening, that we have talked ourselves into leaving. have we locked ourselves into leaving in 2011, senator clinton? >> i do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving. but what we have done, and it was inappropriate for the position -- for the president to take, to signal clearly to all audience that the united states is not interested in occupying ask cannot stand, we're not interested in running their country, building their nation. we're trying to give them the space and time to be able to build up sufficient forces to defend themselves. it is the best assessment of our military experts that by july

2011 there can be the beginning of a responsible transition that will be based on conditions. here is what the president said -- allow us to begin to transfer our forces in july 2011, we will take into account the conditions on the ground. to me, that is exactly the appropriate approach for the president to take. and as secretary gates has said, his authority and his responsibilities as commander- in-chief requires him to be constantly assessing, which he will be doing. >> my time is up. there is an audience that was not mentioned by secretary gates. the enemy in this war. finally the last question,

secretary gates and admiral mullen, could you great nato in their effectiveness over the last several years? -- could you grade nato and their effectiveness of the last several years? >> i think it varies from country to country. >> center, they have bled and died. >> i know that they have, but they are fighting force. not as part of it, all that. >> center, in all honesty, i don't think any purposes served by doing that. those of been fighting with us in the south, the australians, the british, dutch, the danes, the canadians, they poles, i would give them all an a. >> thank you. >> let me begin by communicating my respect for all three of you

for the service that you have given our country. and for the process that this administration has gone through with you and others, general jones, in terms of working out -- you may call it the best possible formula. perhaps it is the most realistic in your view. there is not a lot of good in the options that are available in this part of the world. there has been a lot of time spent on the notion of the dates that were mentioned in the president's speech. i would prefer to focus, as i have in the past, on the conditions that might bring about an end point to our involvement. i would like to see an end point. this is something that you can hear more from our perspective on the coming months.

what exactly is going to bring about the conditions under which we can end our involvement? there has also been a good bit of discussion about the nature of the karzai government, and issues such as corruption. i'd like to the firm -- i would like to defer a dialogue on that for the hearing tomorrow, but we may reach a point where we might encourage the afghans to examine their constitution are right? at the bonn conference so that you can get into issues such as local party and corruption. where i would like to spend my time today is how we are separating out who actually should be confronted as the enemy on the battlefield.

as all of you know, i defining characteristics throughout the his -- a defining characteristic throughout the history of afghanistan is its resistance to foreign occupation. i would say that it has been a very successful resistance. when we talk about the taliban, we're talking about terms that we used interchangeably but which are not particularly interchangeable. we have a government which we assisted in getting rid of. we have been in the logical group that operates principally in pakistan, associated with the forces of international terrorism. and then we have a third group which many believe is the group that is growing with the greatest speed, who from the perspective of many afghanis is

it logical only in the sense that it resists our presence. -- is a theological -- is ideological only in the sense that it resists our presence. it is a popular movement and does not particularly like the central government. due to its size, 8 and ashley be elevated, it recruitment -- its recruitment process can be increased by a the american force. in that respect, rather than being an element that is aligned with international terrorism, it is viewed by many afghans as something of a regional militia. it does not particularly want to threaten the united states

outside of afghanistan. i would like to hear from you -- and i will start with admiral mullen, but anyone who wants to contribute -- how are these distinctions in terms of history and in terms of participation made as you develop the policy that was no announced? >> of the retired people -- a very tired people ofa war. all the information i had gotten all personally there, indicate not only are they tired, they are not very supported at all of the taliban. of very small percentage. and i am talking about the last one more specifically. we believe that there is a large percentage of that group which

can be reconciled and reintegrated with the right approach. the other thing, in a larger sense of the last several years, a growing concern is the collaboration of the taliban. they can have a different perspective, but they have come together in ways that have actually -- are hugely concerning to me. >> my time is running out. i think this is an important clarification that you can make your. it -- that you can make here. if these people can be brought over to our view, and if you're having trouble recruiting and national army, which we seem to be, while this element seems to be growing, how are you making the distinction in terms of operational policy that would give them reason to change your

affiliation? >> actually -- but i understand your question correctly -- it is engagement at the local level. we've seen very recently numbers of them say, i do not want to do this anymore. but i think you understand as well or better than anything that you have to have a secure environment. we do not have that in many places. so general mcchrystal is actually very optimistic, and others, very optimistic with respect to doing this, but we cannot do it with the level of security we just do not have been many of these places. >> you have an optimism that over time, there are people that despite the characterization that we presently use, can be convinced to affiliate -- >> i think that they can. in the end, the only way we're

not going occupied is -- that is the challenge that overtime -- we are committed to not doing that and the president spoke last night, but that is the message we have to deliver in fact, not just speaking to it. and to give them responsibility for their own security. that is a big part of the strategy that focuses locally for the secretary talked about not turning back toward war llordism. >> secretary phone. -- senator a tthune. >> i'm interested in knowing how analogous the situation there is with the training and equipping of the afghan security and

police forces to iraq. just in terms of their capacity to take over battle space, and how that fits in with a time line that you have laid out. what made the iraq surge so effective, the counter insurgency strategy, is that they were able to step up and provide security for the population produce the parallels there and how quickly might we expect that capacity and capability to grow? >> senator, is tied to things that are going against us right now. turning this around in a positive way makes a lot of things possible, including proof -- improve retention and recruiting and reduced attrition, and a much better asnf. there are many analogies that are compatible between both iraq

and afghanistan. very concerned about creating mid-grade leaders, a junior leaders, as well as leaders in both the ana and anp. that was a significant challenge in iraq. more so on the police side than on the army side. the same was true in iraq. in fact, it was really late 2007 before the police in iraq release started to step out and the leadership was there. we have to be careful not -- in comparison. on the army side, they had been in the fight a long time. they are good warriors. they have taken to this partnership approach that general mcchrystal has put in place. i think that there's a lot of potential there. there are similarities end there are differences. we are trying to take advantage of those lessons to integrate those and accelerate training

and equipping plans right now. >> let me ask, the president said last night that we will support efforts by the afghan government to open the door to those taliban who abandon violence. general petreaus has previously indicated that we lack the nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the taliban to identify and distinguish between reconcilable and in reconcilable -- irreconcilable. kaine -- have you go about reliably -- how do you go about reliably identifying to reconcilable? >> there are several ways of going about that. as you might know, general mcchrystal has asked a retired british general who was instrumental in the work done in iraq to come to afghanistan to

advise him. the afghans themselves, led by president karzai, had a pretty good idea of who they think can be persuaded and be reintegrated. but this is very much a case by case effort. there are certain aspects of it that we're very insisted on 31, that they have to renounce ties to al qaeda and violence, and they have to be willing integrate into afghanistan society in a peaceful way. we know that some of the taliban will not renounce al qaeda. they are too closely interconnected. we know that others to call themselves taliban -- who call themselves taliban want to have means of acting in a military capacity.

we want them to have to give up their commitment to violence and maybe join the army, if that is appropriate, or one of the community defense initiatives. but this is painstaking work and we have high expectations for who we would support reinvigorating. >> let me add to that. i think that here again, there may be some parallels with iraq. first of all, reintegration at the front end is going to be retail, not wholesale. we will end up as we did in iraq turning to local leaders that we have confidence in who will in turn been vouched for these people. they will essentially pledged their community to the reliability of these people who are willing to come away from the taliban. the second point -- we think that there's a fair percentage

of the foot soldiers in the taliban that basically do this for pay. so creating economic opportunities as an alternative in order to support their families is another vehicle for this. and finally, to the admirals' point, security is essential. there are too many examples of people who have tried to leave the taliban and themselves and all of their family have been killed. and so until we can provide a secure level at the local level, to give them confidence that they will not be retaliated against, it will be a problem. the oiler>> i would echo some oe comments of my colleagues. i think the president is very fortunate to have the three of you, and our country is even more fortunate.

i appreciate your service and i appreciate how hard you have worked at coming up with the best answer on the list of very bad choices. it was not surprised -- it will not surprise you that i want talk about contracting. when i joined this committee in 2007, no one could tell us how many contractors were in iraq. there was not even the number available. we have made progress. now i want to talk about the data base that we put in place to try that track contractors, and the problems are rising about a lack of consistency between usa id, state, and how much we can rely on the numbers. but to the extent we can rely on the numbers, as of june we have approximately 75,000 contractors

in afghanistan, and 52,000 private security contractors in afghanistan. the interesting thing, the stark differences between iraq and afghanistan is the predominance of afghans in our contract in force. 50,000 + of the contractors are afghan. and 5000 of the 5200 private security contractors are afghans. i do not know if this was purposeful or situational. and briefly, if any of you could address whether this is percival or situational purposeful or situational. >> i share the experience that you describe, because in february when i ask to see a list of all the contras and afghanistan, at that time we could not produce such a list.

-- all the contract doors in afghanistan, at -- all the contractors in afghanistan, at that time we could not produce such a list. it is to some extent a message but just the reality of who is there and what the mission requires. clearly what we're trying to do is review every single contract. we stopped everyone until we had a better idea of what they were for and who they went to. we're trying to assert more state department and u.s. aid oversight, that is why we we as someone to go to afghanistan to run the civilian side. we have to do a better job coordinating with not just our friends at dod but all the other government agencies. we really welcome your efforts and we want to be as prompt with them as we can. >> less talk about the long cap form. good news, we completed it.

good news, we ended up with 300 companies that are eligible for contractors. not as good news, i understand the reality of why this occurred -- now instead of one monopoly, we now have two monopolies in that we have given the contracts on a regional basis as opposed to a task basis. they are divided north and south, and they have in fact been selected from the research we have done to do everything in those regions. i understand the efficiency we get by doing that, but while it -- what it brings us up against is the incredible importance of monitoring and oversight. we have one company doing all of the work, even though it is not halt contingency operation, it is certainly within the north

and south. what i was worried about is that there was testimony this summer that we had 600 oversight positions vacant in iraq and afghanistan. it was not clear from the testimony that was given at the time how many of those positions were in afghanistan. are we up to where we need to be with outside margin of the logistical contracts that cost us weigh more than ever should have cost us in iraq? >> as is often the case with these things, if you are probably better informed than we are. what i will tell you is that we do not have as many contracts monitors in afghanistan as we want, and one of the things that i have mentioned, but that the white house -- both at the white house and at the defense

department is let's not forget thabout contract monitors to mae sure that we're doing is right. what i would like to do, senator, is take your question for the record and we will get back to you on the vacancies -- the number of vacancies that we have for contract monitors and afghanistan. >> that would be great. >> if i could add one thing. i ask this in particular to one group. who gets the contract, of very specific effort to hire afghans first. i think that is represented in the numbers that you're talking about, which meet -- which to me makes all the sense in the world. that is really critical. >> center, can i add just one other consider -- senator can i add just one other consideration

to take into account? there is an inherent tension between more auditing, or contract oversight, and the kind of flexibility and agility that we were talking about with senator bill nelson's question. we have to figure out how to manage risk without being averse to risk. and i am talking on the civilian side right now, we have to give them enough discretion to be able to make smart decisions, and yes, maybe even make some mistakes, because they might have made an investment that did not pay off but was worth trying. it is complicated. we want to account for every single penny, but we also want to be sure that we have enough flexibility to be smart as we try to do the job that we have been given. i do not know what the answer to that is, but i would ask for your consideration as we move forward so that we strike the right balance. >> i understand that tension. and there is a real tension.

unfortunately the lesson learned in iraq was that there was not enough of that tension. it was all about, we need it today, we need it tomorrow, we do not care what it costs, get it here. so finding that balance is what we're talking about here. that is why the data is input correctly and the oversight personnel so important. if we do not have those, we never create that tension. and that's my concern. and my time is not -- is up. but i do think we need to look at the data base. whether it has more often to something other than what it was intended to be. all we monitoring are our -- are we monitoring or are we just enabling? i think we need to continue to look at that data base and i will ask you some questions on the record since i do not have

time today. we will look for to continue to work on these issues which you and your great folks that are trying hard, and thank you again. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have not had the opportunity to talk to you about these issues because i am a new center. i appreciate that opportunity today. -- a new center. -- i knew it centaua new senato. i believe that the counterinsurgency strategy is the right tactic that we need for success. there has been a lot of discussion this morning about the 18 months and what that really means. i appreciate the elaboration that was given. let me ask this question. in every plan, you hope for a

successful ending. you must have in your minds what that successful ending looks like. if we are able to meet the president's commitment to remove troops in july 2011, and i guess this question first as to secretary gates, had you envision success looking like at that time? -- how do you envision success looking like at that time? >> what we're talking about july 2011 is the beginning of what we expect will be a gradual process of spending and reducing u.s. forces. i think that the in state -- a end state in afghanistan looks a lot like iraq, the gradual transfer of responsibility for security to the indigenous forces and government, and having a security situation that allows us to draw down our forces.

we have gone from 20 grades to soon to beat 10 brigades in iraq. -- 20 brigades to send to be to -- 20 per grades -- 20 brigages tgades to soon to be 10 brigades. control by local governments that are associated with the national government and hostile to the taliban and to al qaeda. i think that this gradual transfer of security responsibility with a continual goal of our part as a partner of that country, and the long term, that is what i would call success. >> and the fall upon the questions of senator ben nelson in terms of benchmarking, the

u.s. pacific benchmarks for this period when the withdrawal of american troops would begin? there would be only this many american casualties or this many afghan troops trained? we talked about that before. >> we would not have u.s. casualties as a benchmark. but we have some very specific benchmarks, both for us and for the afghans -- and for our international partners as well, in terms of whether they are pulling commitment -- fulfilling commitments that have been made. >> he mentioned 5000 to 7000 troops more from our international partners. you have been in the -- in the past, you've been critical some what of those troops. do you believe that these troops that are coming will be caveat-

free and be able to engage? >> one of the positive developments over the last year, but especially since the nato summit last spring, has been a fairly steady reduction in the number of kattegat's -- caveats that are being imposed. you heard the german defense minister for the first time in germany refer to what is going on in afghanistan as a war. i think they are domestically beginning to deal with the realities of afghanistan, and i think that has contributed to the reduction in the caveats. >> secretary clinton, we have not talked a lot today about pakistan. that is a huge part of the success in this region.

what commitments we get from pakistan -- will we get from pakistan? where do you see their participation in the next 18 months to make sure that we are succeeding? >> senator, they have certainly demonstrated over the last year their commitment and willingness to take on the pakistan taliban who directly threaten them. i spent three days in pakistan recently and spoke at length with the facility and -- the civilian and military intelligence leadership as well as any civilians, press, and others. the unity of support that the people of pakistan are showing for this effort is profoundly significant. as we have said, it is not enough. it is difficult to parse out the different groups that are operating within pakistan, all of whom we think are connected in one way or another with al

qaeda, and partition some off and go after the others. it will be our continuing effort, and admiral mullen has been instrumental in working on this with his counterparts, to make the case that the pakistani staff to do more against all of the insurgent terrorist groups that are threatening them, that are threatening us in afghanistan and the afghan people, are threatening other neighbors in the region. we hope that we will be able to make that case successfully. >> does pakistan understand that having a stable and secure afghanistan is in their natural interest -- national interest? >> they understand that having an unstable, destabilizing afghanistan that offers launching grounds and training for those who threaten them is not in their interest. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> center lacentral nesenator ls

had been talking about the benchmarks. if there are any classified benchmarks, we would honor that. >> good morning to the three of you. the yen and nmb -- unanimity that you present here is very powerful and we thank you for your leadership in your service. i'll do my part to ensure that the politics in this important policy debate will end at the water's edge. and your presence here today makes that statement loud and clear. secretary clinton, if i could follow up on pakistan -- do you have any concerns that the july 2011 transition date sends a message to the pakistan is that we're going to leave the region, that we are not committed in a

long-term way? >> again, the message is that our being -- that are being heard by different audiences are consistent with their perspectives. as senator lemeiux said in his question, there is a lot a question about what our commitment means both in terms of whether we put more troops in or not, whether we leave them in or not, and the pakistani understandably worried that our actions in afghanistan increase cross border efforts that threaten them, which they are not obviously in favor of seeing increase. we work very hard with our pakistani counterparts to explain that we a long-term commitment to pakistan.

we're not going to be in and out a way that we have in the past. we want to be partnered with the pakistani is and support their democracy and their development. and that is independent from afghanistan. we have unfinished business in afghanistan and that requires us to take the steps which the president has outlined, but we are asking for more help from the pakistanis to go after al qaeda and the leadership of the palace -- of the pakistani taliban inside their own territory. >> we will get the job done military in the short term, and in the medium and long term we will have a presence in the region economically and politically. >> as we have with other countries, we have troops in a limited number of countries around the world. some have been there for 50 or 60 years. but we have long-term economic assistance and development

programs in many others. we think that that is the likely outcome in most of afghanistan and pakistan, and we would be there with a long-term commitment. >> and return to the civilian -- i have a close friend following what happens. he said, who is going to be charge of the civilian surge? i have heard about a civilian counterpart. secretary clinton, would there be an official in charge of the search? what a party with that person have? -- what authority with that person have? >> i will be talking with our allies in brussels. there is a united nations presence in afghanistan. there is also in the isaf presence. not everyone who contribute civilian aid is a member of nato will isaf, but they are all

members of united nations, so how we coordinate and better hold accountable our civilian aid is a matter of great concern to all the contributing nations, both the troop contributing, non-troop civilian, non-nato, etc. the plawent country has announca substantial contrition. we're looking at the united nations and nato, but we're coming up with a coordinating mechanism that can meet the needs of all the various parties who want to contribute to afghanistan's future. >> secretary gates, i assume that general mcchrystal understands the importance of that handoff and the coronation. >> nobody wants to more than he does. >> let me turn to the secretary

an abnormal and. -- and admiral mullen. what effect do you see this additional deployment having on to tell time and the length of deployments cycles and the reset, and in the service required to take care of our troops both here at home and in theater? >> this is something that we watch very carefully and have for the last are we years. what is happening in the marine corps, and the ground forces have borne the brunt of these deployments, but what we have seen in the marine corps is moving out almost two to one. they are almost five to one right now. we want to get to the point read their twice as long -- to the point where they are twice as long at home has deployed. they continue to progress out to that along with the critical

enabling abilities of our the next year. on the army side, we are ashley making progress moving away from 1 to 1, not as rapidly. we expected to take a couple more years to get to the point where they are at 2 to 1. we're still being able to gradually improve, although extremely concerned about the continued pressures, stress, and strain that our ground forces have gone through. we are paying a lot of attention to that. general casey sent a note to the secretary yesterday saying and reemphasize in what he had said before that this can be managed, certainly there are challenges associated with that, but he is comfortable that he can lead his army through this at this enormously important time. >> thank you.

>> thank you, senator udall. senator collins. >> secretary gates, i am going to explore with you an issue that senator graham raced. it is an issue that you touched on in your testimony. i think it is the fundamental question, and that is why afghanistan? in your statement you list six primary objectives from the strategy, one of which is preventing al qaeda from regaining sanctuary in afghanistan. yet we know that the al qaeda has a presence in as many as 20 countries, and in yemen, for example, al qaeda is strong enough that a cell there was able to launch a successful attack on our embassy just a

year ago. so the fundamental question to mean is how will it make us safer to invest more troops and more treasure in afghanistan as long as al qaeda still has the ability to establish safe haven in other countries? what is it about afghanistan that makes it critical that we invest more troops, more civilian personnel, put more people at risk, in that country? >> first of all, as the president indicated last night, this is the country where, when the taliban governmened it, the attack against us was launched in 2001. it is the only country from

which we have been attacked successfully. al qaeda is still -- the al qaeda presence and its leadership in the border area of afghanistan and pakistan is still the wellspring of inspiration for extremists g heightism everywhere. afghanistan is where -- extremist jihadism everywhere. kattegat -- afghanistan is where they consider they defeated the soviet union and give themselves credit for its ultimate collapse. whether it is in the united states, or in somalia or yemen, the fact is that the inspiration and often time they guidance and strategic leadership comes from the al qaeda leadership that is there in that border area. what we have seen in the last year develop his an unholy

alliance, if you will, of the al qaeda, the taliban in pakistan, and the taliban in afghanistan. these people work off of each other's mythology and narrative, and the success of one is contributing to success of the other. if anything, the situation is more serious today than it was a year ago. because of the attacks of the taliban in pakistan on pakistan, and the effort of al qaeda in collusion with the taliban of pakistan to try to destabilize pakistan itself. more safe havens on the pakistani side create opportunities for success in afghanistan. but we know from historical experience that safe havens and taliban control of space in

afghanistan not only gives them the opportunity to organize better attacks against the west and our allies and friends, but now gives them an opportunity to further destabilize pakistan. this area, as the president said last night, and as i said in my opening remarks, this area we are talking about, afghanistan in particular, is the epicenter of global extremists jihad. and at that center were to disappear, if that leadership were to disappear, and al qaeda were defeated in afghanistan and pakistan, i think he would face a very different and very significantly less important threat from these various regional movements that put enormous emphasis on their alliance with al qaeda in pakistan and afghanistan. whether it is al qaeda in the horn of africa or elsewhere,

they put enormous value on this connection back into the al qaeda that have fled afghanistan. i think that afghanistan has a unique place in the historical narrative of these extremists that makes it especially important to us. and as the president said last night, preventing the taliban from returning in defeating -- and defeating al qaeda is in our vital national interest. >> secretary clinton, secretary gates has given an excellent answer to why afghanistan. my question to you is can we succeed, despite the brilliance of our leaders, the courage of our troops, the efforts of the civilian component, is this an impossible task? we have a corrupt and ineffective government as the

partner. we have seen in the last two years that even with the presence of nato troops, but government loses control of much of the country. can this work, despite everybody's best efforts? >> senator, we believe that it can. i think that it is important to underscore your question, because along with the question about who is the enemy, this is the critical question. as to the commitment that the president has made. the reason why we do believe success is possible is, number one, we think that the afghan leadership and the people of afghanistan are ready for an approach that makes them more

accountable, responsible, and a true partner. i happen to afghanistan as you know in the past. in this last trip, i was struck what the defense minister told me. he said it was the first time come up with general mcchrystal now in charge of nato isaf that the afghans felt that they were full partners. they were getting access to intelligence that they had never been given before. his enthusiasm for the new leadership that we have on the military side was striking to me, because i have known him for all these years. he has been truly a good soldier, just trying the best he could under very difficult circumstances. but he did not feel that he was fully supported or partnered until relatively recently. secondly, i think the wake-up call about the deteriorating situation had not only heard --

been heard by the united states but by our friends and allies. i think that there was an attitude that the americans were there, we will show up, we would do the best we can, and as secretary gates said, some of are now isaf troops were extraordinarily -- some of our need isato isaf troops were extraordinarily courageous. but there is a new awareness that this is not just america's fight. i'm very encouraged by that. i spend a lot of time with and around karzai. i really believe that if we work with him in a more effective manner, we will get a better outcome from him and from the team around him. he has some very good cabinet ministers who are doing really excellent work. there need to be more of them.

they need to be supported more. they need to be held accountable. but my sense from the very long and candid conversations i have had with him is that there is a window of opportunity that we have to cease. and finally-- seize. and finally, the president's impetus will give us a change in the grand. the result that he is showing, the back that very obviously this is not an easy political call for him to make, it has significant budget implications for our country -- i think that this will help to summon the very best of everybody, and will give us the chance of success that i believe we can achieve. i am not now read about how hard this will be, -- i am not naive

about how hard this will be, but this can lead to success if we apply it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to echo my sentiments about having you here and the service you are providing not only to our president and our country, and i wanted to thank you and the fact that you have spent three hours already answering questions. some of these questions you have already talked about all of a bit but let me just ask another specific concerning nato. obviously the president talked about the fact that we're going to look to nato to help send more additional troops. .

>> our hope is that the president's speech last night and his decisions will help change the political dynamic among some of our allies, and i must say that the first reactions i saw on the news this morning from the europeans and think were very encouraging. presidents are cozy's comments -- i am not aware of any kind of firm decision, but our hope is that what the president has decided will change the political dynamic. the truth of the matter is, and admiral mullen and i run into this all the time, the governments of our allies are really very strongly supportive of the mission in afghanistan, and the military and defense leaders in these countries, and

i think probably also the foreign ministers, very supportive. the problem is some of these governments are in very delicate coalition government, and so their domestic politics or a real concern for them in terms of what they can do. the will is there, the political capacity to deliver has been a challenge for some of them, and our hope is that what the president has decided will help change that dynamic. specifically to your question, i am only aware of the canadiens and the debts that have the specific deadline. i was also wondering about the budgets. budgets are tight right now, and admiral mullen, i was wondering how this is a play -- affecting nato and how do you foresee the admiral addressing these issues.

what i have not seen, certainly that they have concerns like we do with respect to the budget, and for me a demarcation point was the nato summit in april. the support and enthusiasm and actually are hard work to figure out how we can do this better together has just taken a marked turn for the positive. very unlike anything i have seen for the previous two were three years. there are concerns about budgets in each of these countries, and yet they continued in many cases, they are making contributions in very difficult economic times. not as many as we would like some times, but the overall thrust an approach from nato nations has been very positive,

and i am encouraged by that. >> there is a non-nato ally that has played a significant role with us in regional command sell. that is the austrians. i would not want to overlook the sacrifice that may. >> there are many smaller countries to have punched weight above their weight. we will submit for the record a list of all of them, because we are also seeing a number of them. the polls have been extremely responsive and very helpful. there are a lot of other

countries that had done their part, and we also are seeing in some ways more of an international element to this. when all of it is put together, we will submit that for the record. >> i see that my time is up, but i did want to say that the second marine expeditionary brigade is -- i want to echo the support that i have fort north carolina on behalf of all the troops that are serving us in such a valuable way. thank you. >> thank you to all three members of our panel. has been a long and good hearing, and you have all three been wonderful. i have to say at first, i want to thank senator sessions for bringing up the issue of the tanker, and secretary gates, i want to say that i agree with everything he said.

there were minimal discrepancies last year that cost this award to northrop grumman to be tossed out, and one can only read the rfp this year as almost directing a lighter, smaller, an inferior product. i think northrop grumman is absolutely justified to take itself out the competition at this point. i hope that can be rectified. admiral mullen, how quickly can we deploy these additional troops, 30,000 additional troops and their equipment not just to get the gator but the ultimate destination, and how difficult will that be? a notice in the press yesterday, a white house official said the president is saying this has to happen so the military will make it happen. how difficult is that going to be?

>> secretary gates said in his opening statement that the first troops will be there in a couple of weeks. they are already under orders, since the president made his announcement last night. roughly 20,000 to 25,000 by the july timeframe. that is getting them in, getting them repaired, and obviously getting them on mission. >> when will we be at 30?

>> later in the summer, summer, fall, and the precision there, one of the things the president did in his decision was to give the commander on the ground the flexibility to say what troops he wants when, and we are working our way through that with general mcchrystal, given that flexibility. it will take us awhile to be exact, but the vast majority of them will go by the summertime and certainly finish out by the fall. >> have we ever done that quickly before? >> yes. in iraq, we did more quickly, because we had a better infrastructure. wickes under less difficult circumstances. >> i do not know about say less difficult circumstances. >> i am getting a clean up on our side -- about the allied troops, our hope for 5000 to

7000 additional troops from those allies, and let me say i am glad, secretary clinton, that you hastened to add that the smaller deployments are also appreciated. secretary gates, you mentioned specifically several countries as getting and a, and those that are not specifically named may be wondering what their rate is going to be. it appears from what you say the firm in permission we have bexley texas in the wrong direction. the two firm numbers we have been less allied help. our decision not to do the 40,000, rather to do the 30,000, is based on hope and not based on any assurances from these allies. i think that is the testimony today, but i just wanted to nail

that down. >> the situation that we have is that we have received private commitments from some countries, but because they have not yet announced them at home, we are not in a position to make that announcement for them. i will just give you an example. i made two telephone calls day before yesterday, and i received the assurances of between 1802 thousand troops. >> additional troops? >> yes. and we have all been talking to different people. so i think there is a fair degree of optimism in terms of the additional troops. i would also make the point i made earlier in the hearing with respect to the 40,000. early in this process, it seemed to me that because the final

brubaker combat team that general mcchrystal had asked for could not deploy before july of 2011, there was no need to make a commitment to that up front, that i would rather use a smaller number on the american side to leverage both the afghans and our allies, but general mcchrystal essentially is going to get more troops earlier than he would have originally with the 40,000 requests. >> thank you very much, admiral mullen -- somebody does handed me a piece of paper. when as a commander ever announce both a search and a withdrawal both at the same

time? -- a surge and a withdrawal but at the same time? i think that has been very rare in history. if so, what gives us a comfort level that this sort of approach is going to work? i have great comfort in the quickness with which we will deploy these forces in a manner that is absolutely critical. i spoke earlier to my belief that we will know well by mid- 111 where we stand and in what direction, whether we are succeeding or whether we are not. from my perspective, what the president said was to start to transfer responsibility, which is critical, it really is the way home as it has been in iraq. trents for that security responsibility, and then start to transition, based on the conditions on the ground at the time. i think that is doable, and for

my perspective it makes sense that this time, based on our overall understanding of the situation. from that standpoint, i am very supportive of the decision. the message it sends to the afghans, to our allies that the commitment, the result that this additional troop force shows as well, all those are really positive messages. come mid-2011, we will know whether this is working on. >> i am going to support this commander in chief because the alternative is unacceptable. perhaps you would like to, or secretary gates, submit for the record if you can think of ever an occasion in history when a commander has announced of a search and a withdrawal at the same time. you are in a very difficult position. you have had to parts words today and make sense out of a contradictory policy, a policy

that at first blush on its face is a paradox and contradiction. i expect the left is going to rise up this afternoon, but based on testimony, based on your answers to center great, and protest vehemently the statement she made about the flexibility and about the president's always having the opportunity to change his mind to do what is right for the country international security. i put great stock in your statement -- i want to be your teammate. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, and most of my

questions have been answered. you have done very well for the last three hours, answer questions very directly. this patients that we have as a country of what more sacrifices we have to make in the sense of the civilian in, the military end, has been the right mood. i disagree with my counterpart on the other side, republican friend, but i would say that, one thing i want to put to rest, i want to be clear, is on the whole issue of the withdrawal. you have made it very clear that the withdrawal in transition are very different. july occurs in 2011, and withdrawal will occur in some form. it might be 50,000 troops, but

it is undetermined. it might last one-year, one month, or three years. the withdrawal process is the goal we are shooting for in 2011. is that what i understand? there is agreement all across the board in supporting the president's -- what you have done is set a target. then there'll be decisions made at the end of december leading into july of what level but me -- might be. not be very small or it might be very large. that is undetermined yet, but that is the target. am i correct in saying that? >> december is more about

strategy working. are we headed in the right direction? are things moving the way we anticipated they would? the decisions with respect to transition would begin in july, as you have described. >> the target may mean a few people are it may mean thousands of people. >> i just want to echo that will be done with that discussion, in the efforts we need to do in afghanistan. i want to ask you more in depth in regards to the afghan troops and how you see them trending up. and now you have some target

amounts and moving them up -- how confident if you were to measure on a scale the you could reach that successfully, and what would be one or two challenges that would cause it to not get to that goal? >> we have put great leadership in place to address that. it has got to be led by security or can i get there. >> a fundamental shift in the partnership peace, which is a significant break through and how to do this. we have a lot more confidence in that regard. it is one of the reasons we have annual targets, so we can look at how we are doing and adjust accordingly. the secretary talked earlier about retention, attrition, all those challenges we have, more so on the police side and the

army side. i think we are very clear eyed on what the challenge is, and we will assess ourselves rigorously throughout the process, but it is probably the biggest challenge we have with respect to meeting the goals we have set out for ourselves. >> i am ashley very supportive of you getting as much flexibility with the use of your money's. -- i am actually very supportive. figuring out how to fix this now rather than waiting until next summer, because we will lose eight or nine months. i would look to you and the administration with a suggestion. when i figure out how to make that happen? you also indicated the need more in time. have you figured out what that number is?

i agree with you, the civilian component is critical. i appreciate your review and change you have done to really focus on this component and getting unified efforts with the military. have you thought of a number, or is that something you give to the record at some point? >> center, thank you. i am hesitant to state and no. now, but we will provide it for the record. there is a larger idea that i think your question suggests. we should start looking at our budgets as national security budgets. if we are really intent upon having an integrated civilian military strategy, and again i have to complement secretary gates, who has been an advocate long before ever thought would be sitting here at this table in this position. we have to be willing to look across the government at a whole

of government approach to something as critical as our national security and the mission in afghanistan. that is going to take some changes in how we do business and how we think about it. i would obviously welcome the continuing support from this committee and others as we try to get it right. where is the money going to come from? is it going to be part of the budget? how is it going to be costed out? all that has to be worked through between the government, the administration, and the congress, but as we are doing that, we have to quit stowe putting our efforts and start thinking more holistic lee, which is really what our policy intends to present. >> i want to thank the chairman for doing this, it is what i

consider three critical pieces to the equation sitting in front of us today, and not just one component. thank you again for all your service, and thanks for bringing forward three hours of answers to many questions. >> first of all, let me add a word to my colleagues, thank you for your patience this morning, but far more for your patriotic service to the country and to our commander in chief. i wanted to just follow up a little bit on senator collins' question. a foreign army alone cannot be an insurgency. the insurgency in afghanistan requires an afghan solution. this is their work.

he went on to say any success must come and go by, with, and through the afghan government." and other words, without a legitimate, credible, reliable government afghan partner, it sounds like the strategy would be flawed. by all reports that we have, president karzai, as a result of a flawed or fraudulent election by default. he presides over a culture of corruption, and dependent on unfortunately, and opium economy. what i am concerned about is whether we are taking a leap of faith here with respect to our

afghan government partner, and not irrespective of that, but related to that, if we are going to spent -- send 30 dozen more troops and expend additional u.s. dollars, should we not be looking for more a indices or evidence that he truly will be a partner that has a response from his own citizens and support of them, so that we are not just in there without him, and not be perceived as just occupiers. as you said, you have heard the words, but i think a lot of us are wondering whether this is for real on their side. >> center kirk, first let me say with respect to the strategy and

execution, it is fair to say that the two experts in the world right now on counter insurgency in counter-terrorism art general petraeus and general mcchrystal. they are very committed and confidence that we will see success. they could be wrong, we are all human and we can make different assessments. it is absolutely the case that general mcchrystal pointed out one of the salient features of the campaign that we are

waiting, and that is to have a good, solid partner in the afghan government. i think it is unfair to paint with such a broad brush the government of afghanistan, and to basically declared that they are incapable and unwilling to defend and protect their own country and that they are fatally flawed. i do not believe that. i believe that the way our government interacted with president karzai and his government over the last several years read a lot of the confusion and the inadequacy that we are now having to contend with. i am not making the case that

this is a perfect partnership, but i think it has the elements of real progress, if we are smart enough to know how to put them together in a winning strategy. the people on the ground, the people who are responsible for implementing the strategy, including ambassador eikenberry who wholeheartedly endorses the president's definition of our mission believe is hard, but doable. i also believe we have got to come at this with a sense of resolve, determination and a cautious optimism that we can make this work, and i think

there is a very strong argument that we can. >> i would like to just the -- pitch in and echoed secretary plans comment about the danger of paying them with too broad a brush. there are some number of ministers, and i would say to mike that we work most closely with, defense and interior, who are quite competent and quite capable and have been good partners for us. similarly, when we see a good governor go into a province, we have seen a situation turnaround literally in months when a competent, honest governor is put in place. there are more than a few of those in afghanistan. all the problems that you have described and discussed here this morning are real. they exist, but there are

enough that we can part with you are already in the afghan government or our governors that i think is what contributes to i won't say optimism but a feeling of some confidence that this is going to work. >> it is less so according to general jones on the afghanistan side. could you just give us a little bit of flavor about the thinking, another option which might more readily address the president's concerns and his mission, the option of trying to secure and sealed the afghanistan-pakistan border while we are working to ensure the security and stability of

the nuclear weapons and doing what we can to destroy the safe havens in pakistan, while we seal the border so the terrorists are not fleeing back into afghanistan, as one strategy, as opposed to the 30,000 troops in afghanistan. >> there are a lot of views on borders around the world. my experience and experience of a lot of people who have been doing it for a long time, those borders are pretty tough to seal, and certainly this one is as tough as any in the world. at least from my perspective, it does not mean we should not have security up there, because we have. we are working very are to establish centers that are manned by boat afghanistan and pakistan military members. i think that getting to the point where you think you can secure that, i do not think that

can be done, first of all. secondly, the focus on pakistan and has been mentioned here is absolutely vital. it really is a sovereign country. they've really done and not -- gunnoe lot. -- they have really done a lot. we are working to support that, and our interests are also very much mutual because of the threat that has been discussed before. it is going to take some time to do that. then there is that long-term partnership on both sides that is absolutely critical. one of the questions that comes very quickly from military and civilians the importance of the president's message last night and this decision is a significant step in that direction. we cannot afford to do that. >> thank you very much.

thank you all very much again for your service and your patience. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do not know whether this is a case of saving the best for last are simply the last for last. i have been very gratified to hear the testimony of these three distinguished americans here today. admiral, i want to thank you for your lifetime commitment to our armed forces. secretary gates, i want to thank you for your continued service. the president was wise to ask you to remain, and you are a true public servant to decide in spite of the advantages of private life to remain. i am grateful to you for that. secretary plan, i remember with fondness our service on this panel together, literally side by side, and the journey we took together to afghanistan several years ago. i cannot help but think that if we had the kind of nuance and complex analysis at that point, perhaps we would not be here today, but we are.

i am gratified that all of you took the time to think this through, to maximize our chances of getting it right. it is good to see you again. on a lighter note, have not had a chance to see it since the news about your daughter was announced. congratulations. >> thank you. >> the bottom line for me, and several of you have stated this, there are no easy answers here, only difficult choices. it seems there are no guarantees. seems to me the strategy you have settled on maximizes the chances of success, maximizes the chances we will ultimately be able to leave afghanistan, not temporarily, but permanently, while security -- securing the security of the united states. i think it is important to note that i am sure none of you want to be here recommending that we spend more money in afghanistan, or that we send more troops to afghanistan. but we have to remind ourselves in the american public that we are there because we were attacked from that place.

3000 innocent americans lost their lives as a result of that. we owe it to the american public that we maximize the chances of that not happening again. i think your strategy does that. regrettably, we are likely to remain under threat from radical islam and organizations like al qaeda. if we leave, we run the risk of it returning to a safe haven from which attacks can be launched on our homeland. i do think the strategy you have settled on, maximizes the chances of minimizing those combined risk on an ongoing basis. so i thank you for that. although neither one of them is here, i want to thank senator lieberman for his comments. i think he was exactly right when he pointed out, you are receiving tough questions from both the left and right today. the president is not doing this because it is politically expedient, he is doing it

because it is in the natural -- national interest of the united states. i think it is the kind of decision making he is exhibiting here today. i want to associate myself with some of the comments of senator mccain and several of my, -- colleagues on the other side of the aisle to support this president in his decision making. for those who believe that the ability to forge bipartisan decisionmaking is impossible in washington, their comments today are evidence that is not necessarily so. so i want to thank them for putting partisanship aside and choosing to support our commander in chief in a very difficult situation. and do take issue with a couple of things that were raised by senator mccain, and i would is as yet myself with the comments. i think that the notion of having -- and i think secretary gates, you mentioned this, demonstrating resolve as well as a sense of urgency -- we

demonstrate resolve by maintaining our commitment, but at the same time, we insist that the afghans have the sense of urgency which is ultimately going to do more than we can do to make this a successful undertaking. by having an exit strategy in place, we say to them we are we do, but only so long as you do your market >> there are

differences, and we are wrong to try to appeal to the reconcilable against the unreconciled will. i think he used the words that they collude in some other operations, there is a symbiotic relationship between the and reconcilable elements and al qaeda. i would like to give you a chance to address this issue, which i understand it simply is not possible to defeat al qaeda or minimize the risk from al qaeda without combating that unreconciled will element of the taliban.

there is just a significant amount of intelligence of al qaeda identifying themselves with the taliban aspirations in afghanistan, and the taliban talking about their relationship with al qaeda and the message that al qaeda has. the taliban are clever. we would not be in the situation we are in if we did not face and adaptable and clever adversary. they recognize that the reason they are not in power right now is because they allowed al qaeda to launch the attack against the united states. so every now and then you will see some reporter that the taliban is saying let's downplay the.

now we have the taliban pakistan, the taliban in pakistan whose target is the pakistan government and who are working closely with al qaeda along with their compatriots in afghanistan. >> in addition to the inspirational and aspirational role that al qaeda plays, they provide very specific services. they help provide funding. they help provide targeting and training and equipping. very often they have their planners working closely with the elements of the taliban and both afghanistan and it is in order -- certainly are on

presence and our troops. i do not think there is any doubt in the longer that there has been a developing senega of terror. those tentacles reach far and wide, they reach to somalia and yemen, etc. their focus and grounded in the border area between pakistan and afghanistan. it is our assessment, it might been possible if we had gone at it differently in the beginning of this war to have captured and killed enough of al qaeda and taliban leadership to have made a difference, but we are where we are right now.

>> if i could be permitted one final question, another point of view that is offered, voices that are raised, that we are focused on the wrong place. al qaeda is now essentially located in the tribal areas of pakistan. why are we doing this in afghanistan? my understanding of testimony is that were we to adopt the strategy, the taliban would reassert itself in afghanistan, having safe havens there from which to launch attacks. no. 2, we can not going to pakistan. we have to try to build up the pakistan these capability of dealing with the problem there. this is not an either or choice. ignoring one would undermine the other. if you care to address this notion that we could do one but not the other, which seems to be out there in the minds of some.

>> they are inextricably linked. there is no question that if the taliban, and their strategic goal is to take over the government again, if they came back then they would certainly have all the ability to provide that kind of safe haven. again, there solely to cross that border, the link is between these two countries. nothing is more evident than that. that is why the president's strategy, even in march, drove this to a regional approach, not a single country approach. you cannot just do one without doing the other. >> this may be the last thing i say in this hearing, what is essential for a national security is that we have to long-term partners in afghanistan and pakistan. quite frankly, i detest the phrase "exit strategy." what we are looking at over time is a transition in our relationship with the afghans, a

relationship that now, where there is the preponderance of a military relationship as we try to secure the country and put it in a position where they can accept responsibility for their own security, and frankly to prevent al qaeda from coming back, over time, as we are successful in that, the development component of our relationship with afghanistan will become predominant. we may have a small residual training and military role with afghanistan in the future. we must not repeat the mistake of 1989 and turn our backs on these folks. then this civilian and development part must be the preponderant part of our relationship far into the

future. >> that is one of the truth is refreshing things in past administrations, from time to time -- here your working hand- in-hand. we both have to go forward to get the job done on a permanent basis. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> are witnesses, you have been excellent. you have been responsive, you have been more than patient, because we promised you that you would be out of here by 12:30. we owe you much more than that. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> secretary of state hillary clinton, defense secretary robert gates, and admiral mike moeller and return to capitol hill tomorrow to testify again about u.s. troop levels and strategy in afghanistan. their testimony before the senate foreign relations committee will be live online at c-span.org at 9:00 a.m. eastern. after secretary plan leaves for meetings in europe, secretary gates and admiral mullen will testify before the house armed services committee. that is live on c-span3 and c- span radio at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> the senate has started debate on the health care bill. majority leader harry reid has

worn centers to expect evening and weekend sessions. see it all live on our companion network, c-span2, the only network with a full debate unedited and commercial free. to watch video-on-demand, bowed to c-span's health care of. >> tomorrow the senate will vote on a number of amendments. maryland democrat -- center john mccain has a motion to send the bill back to the finance committee to remove medicare reductions. the senate returns at 9:30 a.m.. watch live coverage on c-span2. >> our coverage strategy in afghanistan continues in a few moments with british prime minister gordon brown answered

questions from members of parliament about the role of the united kingdom there. in about 10 minutes, more reaction to president obama's speech from the nato secretary general. after that, the house foreign affairs committee about troop levels and structure -- strategy from secretary gates, secretary clayton, and admiral mullen. >> this week on "q&a", our guest is malcolm glad well, author and writer for the new yorker" magazine. he currently has four books on that best-seller lists. his newest book is a compilation of articles he wrote for "the new yorker" magazine. >> american icons, three

regional documentary's from c- span, now available on dvd. you need to read through the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. see the swiss the detail of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices. go beyond a velvet ropes of public tours into those rarely seen spaces of the white house. america's most famous song, and explore the history, art and architecture of the capitaol, one of america's most symbolic structures. american icons, a three disk dvd set. order online at c-span.org /store. >> british prime minister gordon brown responded to president obama's speech on afghanistan during his weekly question time. he also to questions about the united kingdom's role there. this is about 10 minutes. >> questions to the prime minister.

>> mr. speaker, i am sure the whole house will wish to join me in paying tribute to acting sergeant john amer. we owe him a huge debt of gratitude, and our thoughts are with his family and friends. owe him a huge debt of gratitude as we plan a way forward in afghanistan, this loss in afghanistan reminds us of the risks and dangers our forces to have endure in afghanistan today and every day. and of the importance of securing peace and stability. mr. speaker, after talks with president obama i can also report that the london conference in afghanistan will make decisions on civil coordination in afghanistan. hear commitments by coalition partners on extra troops and from president karzai on afghan reform. this morning i had meetings with colleagues and others in addition to my duties in this house i shall have further such meetings today.

>> in associating myself with the condolences by the prime minister for the family and friends of acting sergeant john amer. i know i am speaking for every member in this house. >> yeah. >> following recent events in the hospital trusts, does my right honorable friend agree with me and agree with the secretary of state for health and with the recent report of the health select committee that the major priority of the national health service must be patient safety? >> mr. speaker, patient safety is and has to be our number one priority. and there is no excuse other than for the best care and no tolerance of the failure of managements. i am sorry when any patient receives less than the best care and help in the nhs. as a result, we have introduced independent regulation and transparency so that information flows to the patients.

we have set up the care quality commission, which from next year will register all hospitals and set clear safety standards that they will have to continuously meet. and i can say today that our objective is that that process will start not from april but from january. and we will do everything in our power to have hospitals deal with hospital-acquired diseases and make sure of the best care at all times. this has been a 7% fall in mortality overall in our hospitals a 50% fall in mrsa. we will do everything on our part to make our hospitals clean and secure. >> david cameron. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i join the prime minister and everyone in this house in paying tribute to acting sergeant john amer who died this week in afghanistan. he gave his life to protect our country. we should honor his memory. we should care for his family. before i go on to other subjects can i ask a couple questions about afghanistan.

following president obama's very welcome speech last night the british people will want to know what the u.s. surge means for british forces. i think we all accept that one of the problems has been that british troops have been spread too thinly over too much ground. will the u.s. reinforcement mean we will be able to have more of our forces concentrated in fewer places so they can protect the population more effectively and turn the tide against the taliban? >> mr. speaker, i think first of all, the whole house will welcome the announcement by president obama. both of the objectives of the mission in relation to the taliban and in relation to al-qaeda but also the numbers of troops a very substantial part will go into helmand province and will be dealing with the taliban there. i said on monday our troops would go in immediately so that they were more densely concentrated in the areas where there has been the greatest problem. i said that from january some of our troops would be involved in the vital task of partnering and

mentoring the afghan forces. i believe that we have a situation where at the moment there are something in the order of 200,000 afghan troops and america and coalition troops in afghanistan by the end of next year, and by the beginning of 2011 that will be in excess of 300,000. it will make it possible for us to transfer the control of some of the districts and provinces to afghan security control starting in 2010. >> mr. david cameron. >> the prime minister specifically spoke about this transfer of provinces in 2010 and i want to ask him about this because at the weekend he said he was looking at transferring at least five afghan provinces to lead afghan control by the end of 2010 including parts of helmand. this was widely interpreted as a commitment to start the withdrawal of british troops in 2010. well, the prime minister shakes his head but that's how it was

reported on every single media -- and this -- this is a -- well, this will be a good opportunity for the prime minister to clarify this issue. president obama said the process of transferring forces out of afghan would not even he begin till the middle of 2011. it is important that we don't give full expectations to british troops or mixed messages to anybody else. so can the prime minister clarify whether he would expect british troop numbers to start with reducing in 2010 or 2011? . >> mr. speaker, i made it absolutely clear at the press conference that if he read the full transcript of there was no question of us withdrawing our british troops until the point that we were sure that the afghans could take over security control themselves. now, even if one or two parts of a district or a province are transferred in 2010, we will continue to have our troops in afghanistan at that point. my point earlier was that by

2011, there will be over 300,000 troops both afghanistan, american, british coalition troops and that is the point in which the balance of afghanistan forces and british and american and coalition trends will start to trend. it's essential that the afghans take over and it's crucial that we are assured that the afghan troops are properly trained and, therefore, they are partnered with the british forces. that will happen during the course of 2010. i can assure him that we will stay and do the job that is necessary. i believe that when people see in britain the facts of the taliban thr >> the nato secretary general said wednesday that nato allies will send an additional 5000 troops to afghanistan.

they urge the international community to send more troops, saying this is not just america's war. craigslist morning, ladies and gentlemen. the secretary general will make an opening statement, and we will have time for questions. >> thank you, good morning. i will focus my remarks on the main priority today, this week and for this alliance, afghanistan. last night, president obama made a very important statements. he reconfirmed what we all know, that we cannot have security in our countries and in our homes until terrorism is defeated in afghanistan. he expressed the determination

of the united states to do what is necessary to finish the job for as long as it takes, but not one day longer. it he backed of those words might committing substantial numbers of troops and by setting out a clear political and military strategy for success. i congratulate president obama on his determination and their strategic vision that he has demonstrated. this is not just america's war. what is happening in afghanistan poses a clear and present danger to the citizens in all our countries. terrorism that the strike our streets, our airports, are metro's -- our metros.

drugs that end up in our schools and back alleys, and they kill 100,000 people every year. instability in afghanistan means in security for all of us. if we are to make afghanistan more stable and ourselves more secure, we must all do more. the united states has assured a multilateral approach to this operation. we must now demonstrate -- this is our fight together. we must finish it together. at this very important moment, penn nato must demonstrate its

unity and strength once again. it means in concrete terms that all allies and partners in our mission must do more. for all these reasons, i have spent the past weeks speaking directly with all the allies, which i believe might be able to provide more forces for the operation. i can confirm that the allies and our partners will do more, substantially more. in 2010, the non-u.s. members of this mission will send at least 5000 more soldiers to this operation, and probably a few thousand on top of that. . .

that means transition, where afghan forces take the lead and our forces move into a supporting role. i am pressing allies and partners to fully resource and finance our training mission. with the aim to train and educate afghan soldiers and afghan police, because that is how we will make transition to afghan lead a reality sooner. but let me emphasize --

transition is not a code word for exit strategy. it means transition to a different role. we have no intention to have come this far, and sacrificed this much, to falter before the finish line. we will stay as long as it takes to finish our job. and our mission in afghanistan will end when the afghans are capable to secure and run the country themselves. but people want to see progress. the afghan people, and people in troop-contributing countries. and we will ensure progress.

i find it realistic to start the afghan this -- the transition to afghan lead in some districts already next year. tomorrow and the next day we will discuss all of this at the foreign ministers meeting here in brussels. but we will not just discuss the military operation. we will also focus on the broader political strategy, and that includes what we expect from the new afghan government. good governance is the best way to suck the oxygen away from the taliban. and after all that we have committed to this mission, we have the right to insist on it. president karzai has made some very clear and welcome statements.

i am pleased to see that corruption investigations are already under way. it is a good start, and it will help to establish the credibility the afghan people and the international community need to see. the conference to be held early next month -- i think it will be in january, actually -- will be very important in this regard as well to establish new contracts between the afghan government and the international community. this week marks the beginning of a new phase in our mission. in 2010, there will be substantially more forces on the ground focused -- focusing on

defending the afghan people. we will start handing over lead security responsibility to afghan forces, district by district, where conditions allow. there will be clear commitments, and i expect clear action by the afghan government to earn the support of the afghan people. there will be more development assistance starting with the $5 billion pledged by japan. and the civilian side of the whole effort to will be stepped up as well, not least through the european union action plan. all of which is why we will soon see a new momentum in this mission. of course, while afghanistan is the most important issue on our agenda at the foreign minister's

meeting, is not the only one. there are three other issues in particular which will be under discussion. first, nato's open door. the open-door policy has already helped to stabilise much of europe. and the allies believe that the countries of the western balkans should all find their home in nato and the european union when they meet the necessary standards. want to negroes and bosnia and hercegovina have both applied to join the membership action plan. -- martin never -- montenegro and bosnia and herzegovina have both applied to join the membership action plan.

ministers will decide if each of them, based on their own individual merits, has reformed enough to meet the standards a map requires. we will take that decision tomorrow. second, naked-russian relations. foreign minister lavrov will join his 28 colleagues in the net debt-russia council meeting on friday. i am confident that this will be a substantial and for looking meeting. my aim as chair of the nrc is that we will be able to agree to a joint review of 21st century threats and challenges. we will set out a concrete workplan where we would do more together to face those trips to the mutual benefits of all countries within the nato-russia council. we will also agree a way forward on reforming the work in the naked-russia council. third and finally, we will meet

with both georgia and ukraine. the commitment made in bucharest to both countries still stands. they will become nato members when they meet the standards and if they so desire. we will be discussing progress in reform which nato will continue to support. we will also thank both countries for what they are contributing to our operations and missions, and i would like to recognize in particular georgia for the very substantial contingent is standing to afghanistan. so, overall, of very busy foreign minister's meeting in a very important week.

united arab emirates news agency. what was the results of your meeting and why did you not invite icdi ministers to attend these ministerial meetings in brussels? thank you. >> well, first of all, we had a very successful seminar and conference in the united arab emirates a few weeks ago. i had very productive bilateral meetings with political leaders in the country. as you know, i have made it a priority to further develop and strengthen our partnerships within the istanbul cooperation initiative and also the mediterranean dialogue. this is also the reason why we have organized and will plan meetings with our partners at ambassadors level in the very

near future. i would not exclude the possibility of having meetings at the ministers level at a later stage, but we have embarked on a very intense dialogue with the country's within these partnerships. the reason why we have not organized meetings with all our partners this week is that it is a very heavy agenda. i think you can imagine that we have to focus in particular on afghanistan this week. >> polish radio. secretary general, poland wants to send to afghanistan 600 additional soldiers. is it important -- an important contribution in your opinion? or maybe you expected a bigger number? and the second question, what kind of troops has poland

promise? >> i appreciate very much the polish pledge. i had meetings in warsaw recently. we had a very constructive discussion. and we look very much forward to an additional contribution from poland. i do not want to go into details about the specific elements in this contribution. as you may know, there will be a force generation conference organized next week where our military people will discuss how contributions from each individual ally could possibly fit into the overall picture. >> afp.

in his speech, president obama mentioned the credibility of nato, and you have talked a little bit about what the allied said need to do in terms of picking up their effort. -- the allies need to do in terms of picking up their effort. after september of 11, and we invoked article 5 and that is still in place, and president obama has taken a bold step, pretty much putting potentially his president on the line. so what more do europeans have to do? i know you cannot quantify in terms of the number of soldiers, but is it not time for leadership from european allies to make similar commitments? >> this really is an alliance mission. all 28 nato allies are in this together, and in addition to that, 15 partners within the isaf coalition contribute to our cooperation -- our operation in

afghanistan. so it really is an alliance operation. and we should keep it that way. i very much appreciate the u.s. multilateral approach and this is also the reason why i have done a lot to secure it -- to encourage the non-u.s allies and partners to make further contributions. actually, i think the non-u.s allies have demonstrated a clear commitment to our operation in afghanistan. let me remind you that during the last three years, the nine u.s. allies -- the non-u.s allies have nearly doubled their contribution -- their true contribution to the operation in afghanistan. and as i said in my introduction, i would expect them to contribute further now, at least 5000, and probably a

few thousand extra on top of that. >> from bloomberg. on that point, which are the countries that you expect to contribute these extra troops, and does it give you any concern that these countries have not come forth immediately after president obama's speech, but appeared to be waiting until the january conference and they are eying that as some sort of condition for announcing a further troop deployment? >> yes, i have had a lot of meetings and talks during the past weeks, but i will leave it to each individual ally to announce their concrete contribution. but based on my talks, ipo confident that we will see quite a number of pledges. there might be allies that want

to see the outcome of the international conference to be held on january 28 before they actually announce their concrete contributions. for me, the most important thing is not the timeline here, but the fact that they will actually contribute with an additional number of troops, so i think you will see some pledges right now , some at a later stage, but still at the beginning of 2010, and then you will see a build up of troops during 2010. >> from reuters. could you just clarify, you mentioned at least an additional 5000, possibly several thousand

more. how many of that number will include troops who are already on the ground and have been sent in as election reinforcements? >> well, i am not able to make that separation in exact terms right them. the fact is that the number 5000 will be an additional contribution compared to what we had expected for 2010. and on top of that, i would expect some thousand extra. and i think that is what counts. i mean, if the country had planned to withdraw a number of

troops in 2010, then it would not be possible for our commanders in the field to operate on the basis of these troops. so if that stay -- if they stay, it is a fact that it is as strengthening of our operations in afghanistan. delores' yes, secretary general, in almost all member countries -- >> yes, secretary general, in almost all member countries, public opposition to the war has grown steadily as the number of troops have risen above last three years. how do you propose to help overcome this majority opinion now, and scepticism about claims that the taliban are somehow an exit sizzle threat to europe -- an existential threat to europe? >> it is a matter of concern that we have, according to

opinion polls, seen a decline in the public support for our presence in afghanistan. i think that people want to see progress on the ground. so you live. and this is also the reason why it is so important to ensure an afghan lead transition, to afghan lead responsibility for security as well as development. and security-wise, it means that we will hand over lead security responsibility to the afghan security forces. district by district, province by province, as their own capacity develops and when conditions permit to do so. it will be a condition-based transition to afghan lead, but based on what we know about the security situation in different parts of afghanistan, i find it realistic that we will be able

to transfer lead responsibility to the afghans in 10 to 15 areas and districts already next year. but i have to stress that this transition to afghan lead will be condition-based. we will not leave unless we feel sure that the afghan security forces can actually take on responsibility for the security in that specific district or province. >> jane's defence weekly. change of topic, bosnia. if the alliance does extend the map to bosnia, of course it will argue that this is a stabilizing measure, but one could also argue on the other hand that this is a very risky proposition, extending this to a federal entity that is very weak inherently and where the tensions among the entities are very high.

mr. rasmussen, do you knowledge that risk? >> let me stress that no decision has been made yet, and i will not prejudge the outcome of the foreign ministers' meeting. i visited bosnia-herzegovina last friday, and i am encouraged by the fact that is a unanimous decision -- that it is a unanimous decision not only within the bosnia presidents, but also across all community lines and across political dividing lines. it is a unanimous decision to apply for membership action plan. i think that is an encouraging

thing. and i think that there is a unified allied position, that the long-term goal should be to see bosnia-parts of the villa, as well as all other countries in the western balkans, as a member of nato and the european union. -- to see bosnia-herzegovina last friday and i am encouraged by the fact that it is a unanimous -- as well as all other countries in the western balkans, as a member of nato and the european union. so the question is not if, but when the type is ripe for granting a membership action plan to bosnia. but i am afraid that i cannot answer your question without prejudging in one way or the other the discussion among ministers, and i am not going to do that. i think that we will have a very frank, very open discussion and i think ministers will take into consideration both pros and cons when the final decision will be made probably tomorrow.

>> just following up concerning the enlargement strategies. will ministers consider some kind of decision concerning the georgia and ukraine joining the map? are these countries less prepared for a map than, for example, bosnia and anmontenegr? >> i think ministers will reconfirm the decisions made at bucharest and at the strasbourg- kehl summit concerning georgia and ukraine and we will welcome the progress made by the two countries within their annual national programs. >> georgian tv. the situation in georgia's occupied territories very complex. russian soldiers have kidnapped 11 georgian citizens, including four teenagers.

will nato do consideration on haneda-russian council meeting situation on georgia's occupied regions? and next question, integration in nato is the top of georgian foreign policy agenda. will be the message of the nato foreign ministers to georgia's public at this ministerial? >> i think two messages are important. firstly, that we insist on respect for georgia's territorial integrity and sovereignty. and secondly, that the decision we took in bucharest still stands. we all know that we decided in bucharest that georgia and ukraine will become members of nato, provided that they fulfill the necessary criteria. i think that these two messages are the core messages.

>> [speaking french] -- disappointed by the fact that mr. sarkozy did not agree to certain elements? are you going to convince france to change their mind? if you could respond in french, please, and tell us how many troops you intend to send? >> on the contrary, i am very much encouraged by the comments made by president sarkozy. president obama announced that there would be a significant increase of the number of u.s.

troops in afghanistan, and in such a situation is absolutely crucial to my mind -- it is absolutely crucial to my mind that the other allies follow suit. and in particular, all like to stress the following two points. first of all, the balance of the alliance is at stake. our equilibrium among ourselves -- and it is crucial for the afghan operation not to be perceived as a purely simple u.s. operation. secondly, we asked the u.s. to adopt a multilateral approach.

but i believe that the u.s. will begin to challenge or had doubts about this approach if they considered that the other allies are not fully carrying their weight and sharing the burden. therefore i would like to call on all of the allies to increase the number of their troops in afghanistan. >> secretary, you have said that we're not talking here today about an exit strategy from afghanistan, but president obama has already said that he plans to start the redeployment of soldiers in mid-2011. and already the papers are talking and reporting and emphasizing that the united

states is already thinking in leaving afghanistan. how do you square these two things of president obama saying that in 2011 we are going to be back home, or start to be back home, and you are saying that we are going to stay there for as long as it takes. thank you. >> yes, i think it is an important question, and important to interpret this correctly. nobody is speaking about an exit date, but what we are speaking about is a transition, a transition to afghan lead, and i have repeatedly stressed how important is -- how important it is to show the light at the end of the tunnel, to show clear progress on the ground. and this is the reason why

transition to afghan lead is a one point. we are not taking -- speaking about an exit strategy, but a transition strategy, which eventually, when conditions permit, will lead to a withdrawal of international troops. but it is important to stress that is a condition-based process. we will not just leave afghanistan behind. we will stay and finish our job, and the mission ends when the afghans are capable to secure and run the country themselves. and let me also remind you that transition means that foreign troops will gradually be replaced by afghan security forces, so it will not be a weakening of security in afghanistan, but our aim is to train and educate more afghan

soldiers and more afghan police, so that they can take lead responsibility and we can move to a more supportive role in this transition process. so this is what it is about. it is not a run for the exit. we will go for the transition to afghan lead. >> dutch radio and tv. the dutch have already scheduled to leave afghanistan by 2010. with president obama asking to send more nato troops, are you asking maybe urgently for the dutch to stay longer, and had you been in contact with the

dutch government about it? >> i hope that all allies will take into consideration how important it is that we keep this as an alliance mission and that other allies follow suit when the americans have decided to contribute a significant number of additional troops to our operation in afghanistan. and i feel confident that the dutch government, as well as other governments, will take all this into consideration. >> of par from military confrontation, what about political dialogue with the taliban? >> i am strongly in favor of a reintegration and reconciliation process in afghanistan.

i think that is the way for. but there are, of course, certain conditions which must be fulfilled firstly, that it is an afghan-led process. the afghan government must be in the driver's seat. we are ready to assist, but basically it must be an afghan- led process. secondly, i think it is crucial that those groups and parties involved in a reintegration and reconciliation process accept and abide by the afghan constitution. but provided that these conditions are fulfilled, i think reintegration and reconciliation process in afghanistan would be beneficial for the whole society. >> two questions here.

>> secretary general, you know that when journalist come from the arab world, they have a lot of questions, so we try to find some of the answers we are looking for. what about nato's role in the mediterranean region? and my second question, about the fate with the afghani people? how could you build faith and how would you change the situation at the time when the casualties received from day-to- day, civilians, mainly civilians, children, women, caused by nato strikes? >> first of all, let me stress that we are in afghanistan to protect the afghan people. and i strongly regret when we see civilian casualties. i know that our soldiers on the

ground do their utmost to minimize the number of civilian casualties. but let me also remind you that a huge majority of civilian casualties are caused by the taliban. that is a fact. and the first question? >> about the role of nato in the medicare and region -- in the mediterranean region. >> yes. as i have made very clear, right from the outset when i took office as a new secretary general of nato, that is one of my priorities to further develop our partnerships with the countries within the mediterranean dialogue and the istanbul cooperation initiative. i have had meetings with all the ambassadors from our partner countries to discuss with them how we could possibly further

develop our cooperation, both bilaterally between nato and each individual country, and also multilaterally within these two partnerships. in a couple of weeks, we will have a meeting at ambassadors level between the 28 allies and the countries within the mediterranean dialogue. i think it will be followed by a similar meeting with the countries with it -- within the istanbul cooperation innocence. and by the way, we had a very successful seminar and the united arab emirates recently. so we are on a good track, and i foresee further developments of these partnerships during my tenure as secretary general. >> secretary general, the news

came out of the western capitals about the handing over responsibility to afghans or leaving the districts, particularly in the south eastern of afghanistan, and the government in islamabad gets nervous. yesterday's the foreign minister said at least five years, nato should stay in afghanistan. and the prime minister said that if you increase the nato talks in afghanistan, it will exert pressure on taliban fighters and they will cross through from north waziristan into pakistan. what measures are being taken to stop these fighters coming into north waziristan? >> let me stress that actually we have increased the number of international troops in the southern parts and also the eastern parts of afghanistan during last year.

furthermore, the search, which will not take place, will also focus a lot -- the surge, which will take place, will also focus a lot on these parts of afghanistan, in particular the south of afghanistan. it is of crucial importance to have a strong cooperation with pakistan, and i would like to use this opportunity to commend the pakistani government and the pakistani military for their determined fight against terrorists in the border region. so as you rightly pointed out, we cannot succeed unless we join efforts in the fight against terrorism and extremism in these regions. >> we have time for one more. >> mr. secretary general, it is

today the russian ambassador has said that some nato countries blocked the preparation of the documents for the ministerial meeting of nato-russia council because nato does not want to make the main objective of the work of nato-russia council the discussion on the new configuration of european security. so is this issue so difficult to discuss between russia and nato that we are ready to risk the first official ministerial meeting of net-russia council in one year? thank you. >> first of all, let me stress that i am not going to comment on internal negotiations and discussions within the nato- russia council. let me just say that it is not fair to single out individual countries in this. we are right now in a

negotiation process, and it is quite natural that in the run- up to a foreign ministers' meeting where we are going to make important decisions, there will be some discussions. and we have some tough negotiations. i can confirm that. but i still confident -- but i feel confident that all countries within the nato-russia council are committed to finding constructive solutions to that, so that is what i can say right now. we will have the foreign ministers meeting on friday and i feel pretty sure that we will find the necessary compromises and make important decisions on friday. >> that is all that we have time for. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> secretary of state hillary clinton, robert gates, and joint chiefs chairman admiral mall and returned to capitol hill tomorrow to testify again about u.s. troops and strategy in afghanistan prepared testimony before the senate foreign relations committee will be alive, online at c-span.org, at 9:00 a.m. eastern. after that, secretary clinton leaves for meetings in europe. the others will testify before the house armed services committee. that will be on c-span3.

>> our cover of strategy in afghanistan continues in that the moon -- in a few moments with testimony from secretary of state hillary clinton, defense secretary robert gates, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff mike mullen before they house foreign affairs committee. in all little less than three hours, prime minister gordon brown answers questions from parliament about the role of the united kingdom in the afghanistan war. and after that, more reaction to president obama's speech from the nato secretary general. >> this sick -- this week on q&a," our guest is an author and writer for the new york magazine. he has four books on the new york times best-seller list. his newest book "what the dog saw" is a compilation of stories he wrote for the new yorker

magazine. >> this weekend on book tv, we want to our arlington national cemetery, including section 68, were soldiers from iraq and afghanistan wars are buried. it is part of the history of the cemetery with author robert poole. then see the comparisons and similarities of seemingly unrelated to cultural situations. and sunday on in debt, and joined our live free our conversation with joy hakim. for the entire schedule, go to our web site. >> now the second of two hearings on u.s. strategy in troop levels in afghanistan. they heard from secretary of state hillary clinton, defense secretary robert gates, and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff mike mullen for little less than three hours.

c-span 3. >> the committee will come to order. before beginning my opening statements, i would like to make several brief announcement. announcements. as most of you know, our colleague robert wexler will resign to become president for the center of middle east peace and cooperation. he is resigning as chairman as the sub committee on europe and will be followed by bill delihunt. he will be focussed on old and

new europe. the human rights and oversight committee, following in the footsteps of his grandfather. a con term ramporary of bill's. we thank bob for the service on this committee. we wish all three the best of luck in their new positions. [ applause ] and second i want to welcome the prescribe of hungary.

i want to thank the prime minister for his country's leadership of the reconstruction team in afghanistan and for the brave men and women of hungary. welcome, mr. prime minister. [ applause ] witnesses must leave at 4:15, wherever we are. to ensure that as many members as possible can ask questions we will limit opening statements. i will not be taking all of my time. without objection, all others may submit opening statements for the record. i will recognize myself for an opening statement. last night president obama spoke about his plan of action in afghanistan. today we are pleased to welcome

three senior officials to testify on the president's proposed strategy. secretary of state hillary clinton, robert gates and michael mullen. we greatly appreciate your participation. as the president stated, it is clear that the united states has a vital national security interest at stake in afghanistan and pakistan. determining the best@@@@@@@@z many news reports suggest that there was a healthy debate in

the administration about whether this critical objective could be met by pursuing a targeted counter-terrorism strategy as opposed to a more extensive and robust counterinsurgency strategy. could the united states succeed in afghanistan by employing relatively small numbers of special operations forces and high-tech weapons systems to disrupt and defeat al qaeda and reverse the taliban as momentum while also accelerating the training of afghan security forces? momentum. or does the situation call for a more ambitious strategy? to protect the people of afghanistan and instill confidence in that country's fragile national government? if we pursue the latter approach, as the president indicated, success will hinge on

a substantial deployment of civilian resources. the president also noted that success in afghanistan is dp dependent on what he called an effective partnership with pakist pakistan. what more will pakistan to have do and what more will the u.s. have to do to nurture that relationship. and is the full cost of our relationship in pakistan and afghanistan in terms of resources something we can afford and are willing to pay. the president took the time to consult carefully with his generals, diplomats, national security team and numerous others to form a complete picture of the situation in afghanistan. now begins the period for congress and the people we represent. now is the time to evaluate the strategy to raise the questions that will examine the

assumptions on which it is based. the stakes are simply too high. i turn to the ranking member for any opening remarks she would like to make and we will proceed immediately to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses. thank you so much. before i begin my opening remarks, i wanted to state for the record and inform our witnesses today that our colleague is unable to be at the hearing today because he is at a briefing that senator durbin is hosting on gringing guantanamo detainees. he will make every effort to join us. thank you, mr. chairman. our security and vital interests are at stake in afghanistan as the president said in his speesh last night, and i quote, this is no idle danger or threat.

this will only grow if the region slides backwards and al qaeda can operate with impunity. our brave men and women in uniform understand this strategy and stand ready for duty. they embrace the opportunity to defend or nation. it is our op ligation to provide them with the support and resources necessary to win the war in afghanistan and prevail against kwooid, the taliban and other militants. i am concerned that before the strategy has been implemented, the president has plaesed a deadline on our commitment and a time line for the withdrawal. what message does this telegraph to the enemy? how does it impact the moral of our troops and mind set of

counter parts. this is a filgt that we cannot afford to lose. general mccrystal wrote on august 30 that the next 12 months were critical yet one quarter of that time is already gone. there are risks and costs to action. but, they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction. now that the president has articulated the approach, we must fully commit to doing everything possible to succeed there. i ask that our distinguished witnesses address the following. what are the key differences between the strategy that the president articulated yesterday and those that he articulated last march? what action is the administration taking to ensure that those who have pledged to provide multilateral and bilateral assistance to afghanistan actually fulfill their commitments?

and what is our anti-corruption strategy in afghanistan? what is our strategy for promoting a more capable, accountable and effective government in afghanistan. what is the strategy for expanding the numbers and building the capacity of the afghan security forces? what is our strategy in supporting afghanistan in dismantling narcotics traffickers. i would like to refer to an editorial appearing on monday in the wall street journal europe section where the author refers to a discussion he had with the chief prosecutor for the international criminal court. the icc's chief prosecutor said that he already has jurisdiction in afghanistan because the government ratified the statute in 2003 and that he is already

conducting a preliminary examination into whether troops including our american soldiers fighting the taliban may have to be prosecuted by the international criminal court. secretary clinton, you expressed great regret that we are not a c signitry to the international court. what is the administration's current position concerning the icc and what protections are being provided to our personnel to insure they are not subject to icc prosecution? and in closing, mr. chairman, because the administration is concerned about costs and wants to put a price on the defense and security of our nation, i would suggest that we with hold u.s. contributions to the u.n. until the transparency measures are put in place.

i am confident that the american people would prefer that their funds would be provided to personnel in afghanistan so that they have the tools needed to win rather than have it squandered away by enemies of freedom and democracy and that just yesterday the general assembly passed multianti-israel resolutions with their day of solidarity with palestinian people. the challenges in afghanistan are great, mr. chairman, but they are not insurmountment. i look forward to the immediate implementation of a strategy that provides us with the highest chances of success with the lowest risk to our brave patriots serving and about to serve us in afghanistan. thank you very much for the time.

>> thank you. the time has expired. i would like to introduce the witnesses as if they needed an introduction. i will not go through your colleges and first four or five jobs. secretary hillary clinton is the 67th secretary of state of the united states. previously secretary clinton served as the junior senator from new york for two terms where he was known as working across party lines. as first lady she worked on many issues relating to children and families. secretary robert gates is the 22nd secretary of defense of the united states. he is the only secretary of defense in u.s. history to be asked to remain in that office by a newly elected president. president obama is the eighth president under which dr. gates has served. just before becoming secretary

of defense, dr. gates was the president of texas a&m university. he joined the c.i.a. in 1966 and spent nearly 27 years an an intelligence professional. michael mullen is a member of the joint chiefs of staff and serves as the principal military adviseover to the president, the secretary of defense, the national security council and homeland security council. he served as the 28th chief of naval operations. his last operational assignment was as commander, u.s. naval forces europe and he did graduate from notre dame high school in sherman oaks, california. secretary clinton? >> thank you very much mr. chairman, ranking member, members of the committee.

i am grateful for this opportunity to testify today and i also want to acknowledge the leader of one of our very strong allies, the prime minister of hungary, whom the chairman has recognized and to whom we show our appreciation. yesterday, president obama presented the administration's strategy for afghanistan and pakistan. today we will be answering your questions and providing additional details. let me speak briefly on a more personal level about why we are making this commitment. simply put among a range of difficult choices we believe sth is the best way to protect our nation now and in the future. the extremists have attacked us and our extremists we are fight in afghanistan and pakistan have attacked us and our allies before. if we allow them access to the very same safe havens they used before 2001, they will have a

greater capacity to regroup and attack again. they could draggan entire region into chaos. our civilian leaders have reported that the situation is serious and worsening, and we agree. in the aftermath of september 11th, i grieved with sons, daughters, husbands, wives, those who were murdered. it was an attack on our country, an attack on my constituents. i witnessed the damage done to many lives, our economy and a sense of security. i feel a personal responsibility to help protect our nation from such violence. the case for action against al qaeda and its allies has always been clear, but the united states course of action over the last eight years has not. the fog of another war obscured our focus. and while our attention was focused elsewhere, the taliban gained momentum in afghanistan and the extremist threat grew in

pakistan, a country with 175 million people, a nuclear arsenol and more than its share of challenges. it was against this backdrop that the president called for a careful, thorough review of our strategy. i was very proud to be a part of that process, and our objectives are clear. we will work with the afghan and pakistani governments to eliminate safe havens for those plotting attacks against us, our allies and interests. we will help to stabilize a region that is fundamental to our national security, and we will develop long term sustainable relationships with both afghanistan and pakistan, so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. the duration of our military presence may be limited but our civilian commitment must continue even as our troops will begin to come home. now, accomplishing this mission, and ensuring the safety of the american people will not be easy, it will mean sending more

civilians, more troops and more assistance to afghanistan, and significantly expanding our civilian efforts in pakistan. the men and women carrying out this mission, both civilian and military alike, are not just statistics on a power point slide, they are our friends and neighbors, our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, and we will be asking them and the american people who support them to make extraordinary sacrifices once again. i want to assure this committee we will do everything we can to make sure their sacrifices make our nation safer. the situation in afghanistan and pakistan is serious, but it is not in my view as frequently portrayed in the public. we do have real concerns about the influence of corrupt officials in the afghan government, and we will continue to pursue them. but in his inauguration speech